Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 February 1887 — The Lieutenant-Governorship, [ARTICLE]

The Lieutenant-Governorship,

The Judges of the Supreme Court are unanimous in the opinion that the action of Smith vs. obertson should have been instituted in Allen county, which is simply a technical matter. Each of the Judges delivers an individual opinion. Judg Niblack, without discussing the validity of the election, declares that the General Assem--1 ly has the sole right to determine the question; and up >n Mr. Smith's right to pieside over the Senate and the right of the joint assembly to select i‘s presiding officer, says: “So iar as I am able to perceive the Senate has the unquestionable right to determine who is entitleci to act s its presiding officer. Section 16, article 4, of the Constitution declares that each House shall have all powers necessary for a branch of the Legislative Department of a free and independent State. This provision is nothing more than an affirmation of the principles of the parliam. ntary law as applicable to the separate pow- rs and relative independence of the two houses of a legislative body like our Gene al Assembly. Each house is entitled to decide every question which falls within its own exclusive jurisdiction.— AV hen, therefor there is a contest as to which of two persons is entitled to preside over the Senate, the question, from the very necessity of the situation, becomes one ever which the Senate .nustdet ide. it may, as a matter of abstract law, decide indirectly, but, if it shall, I know of no tribunal this side of the ballot-box which is authorized to review its decision. * * *

then, too, I know of nothing in the Constitution or any st tutc or prescribed by any rule of parliamentary law which designates any officer as the person entitled to pieside when the two houses meet in joint convention. The right of a particular person or officr to thus preside might be established by a joint rule of the two houses, but the complaint in this case makes no mention of such a joint rule. Assuming, therefore, that no such rule is in existence, I have no reason for believing that when the the two houses assemble in joint c uivention, an adequate majority of the body thus composed, may not call wnomsoever it pleases to the President’s chair and authorize him to preside lor the occasion. It has most usually been the custom in this State for either the Lieutenant Governor or resident pro tempore of the Senate to preside on such occasions, but the custom has not ripened into or ever been accepted as a precedent of binding authority. If, therefore, a joint convention may select whomsoever it pleases to preside over its proceedings it is too plain for argument that no court can inhibit the person thus selected from s o presiding.” Jud _e Elliott says:

“I fully concur in the opinion of my brother Niblack, that the couits have no jurisdiction of the subject matt r of this action, and as the subject has been by him so fully and so ably discu sed, little can be added. Judge Zollars, as to the power of the General Assembly, agreeing wi'h Judges Nib) ack and Elliott, says: “It must be waged and settled before the General Assembly.— That tribunal alone has jurisdiction of the subject matter. It has exclusive jurisdiction over everything th t pertained to the controversy, both of the law and fact. It ought to be presumed that that tribunal was a capable and impartial ? n . e '. ,l^ e fathers had sufficient faith in it to establish it. Their work must be respected, and trusted.” Judge Mitchell maintains that the court has a r.ght.to decide the main question involved, thus dissenting from Judges Niblack, Elliott and Zollars. He holds that the election of last November was invalid, a d says: “There is nothing in the ConstiJion which so much as raises an inrnr inca th the office Lieolentixo vau Decode in

a legal or actual sense. If there was a vacancy, then the very Constitution which created the office filled the zan.e. An executive system in which the Chief Executive could in any event appoint his own successor apparent, thereby vesting such appointee with power to become President of the Senate, has in my opinion found no precedent in our form of government. The argument is that a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant-Governor having occurred, such vacancy was to be filled first by appointment by the Governor, and then by the electoral body in November, 1886, under the provisions of Section 4,678, R. S. 1881. To this there are three answers: (1) Tlrnre was no vacancy. (2) If there was, the Constitution provided a mode of filling it flier than by the electoral body, viz.: by the election of a President pro tempore of the Senate. (3) The Constitut on by the clearest implication prohibits an election for Governor or Lieuten-ant-Governor except for the term of four years, which term can in no case c mmence at any other than the time specified in that instrument. That the Constitution mak s no provision for election to fill vacancies in the office of Governor or Leutenant-Governor, or for the limitation of the terms of persons dected to fill vacancies in those offic°s, is conclusive that no such vacancies were contemplated.’' J uclge Ho wk concurs with Judge Mitchell in the following terms: “My judgment yields a ready p nd earnest assent to each, and all of the momentous questions discussed by him in this important cause. .1 cannot say aught which would give additional force to his able and exhaustive arguments upon each of these quest ions.J.’herefore, I content myself with earnestly concurring in his opinion ”

The Cincinnati Tbnet-Star, a reDublican p*»pei, whose editor served all Unough th* war io the union army, in commenting o the recent pen sion bill vetoed by the president says; "A word with honest soldiers about the patiner pension bill. The pension for which it provides is no tor disease, or wounds, or rm riiortous sei v* i*e, oi length of service, or service of any sort. The mere fact that a man had his name onjhe army .oil for a few mon’hs and is now dependent en titles him to sl2 a mouth ilia de petiden e may be the result of ie indolence, or im rovi Jeuce, or intemp- • ran< e, or aebnuvUery k makes lo difference He im:y have bueij a met ct,nary sobstitute, a ooumy junioer, a SI e 1,, a p: otes.-lonal shuiker wlio never was uu ar hie iu lifs, it is all the same The bill pays a premium on pauperism aufl pe/jury ig mi insult >u hoia s; soide rs who rt- - luggiilig lu bu r poi'i tuemaeives, and an outrage or; thr goverriiMtut wi.ich is made to t-,x worthy so do ts for the support of ti.e unworthy The patu t r pens on bid is » perversion oi the theory of military passions unknown in an civilized eountr on earth ami soldiers should bi the first o resent it atid protest against itIt is eati uaied i,i laf , ij(J bip w ;q j u crease the annual expenditure from pr« sent sum to $145, 00" 000, or nearly $5 a year *ox every man. woman ; u.| -h,{d ffl tne union "Ins of i ! si‘ f would be a serious objection to the pauper bill, were it otherwise defenstiijk, whieh it is not, Ibe government already provides ler all disabilities incurred in its service Io the name of reason an,-I cons'ience wbnt more should be asked for it?l‘ot what other disabilities should it provide?’